Cold Steel wrote:Critics of Nostradamas will never see anything in the quatrains he wrote, and those who do will never understand why they won’t. And such also is the case with Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. The main difference is, the things Joseph Smith could not have known does not fall into that category. People who say that the Book of Mormon shows us nothing to convince us of its authenticity are blind, misleading or out-in-out duplicitous—and sometimes a combination of all three.
...
Most honest people can say, well, I can’t explain it, but I don’t believe it. (Sort of like the compelling accounts of people who claim to be reincarnations of historical personalities.) But, again, the archeological evidence and consistencies of the Book of Mormon are unassailable. One may choose not to believe the Book of Mormon even in light of such consistencies, but to deny them is another matter altogether.
http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 34653&st=0
Repent, thou blind liars!
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4247
- Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 8:47 am
Repent, thou blind liars!
From MADB:
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1831
- Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 4:13 am
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 3059
- Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:57 pm
Re: Repent, thou blind liars!
CaliforniaKid wrote:From MADB:Cold Steel wrote:Critics of Nostradamas will never see anything in the quatrains he wrote, and those who do will never understand why they won’t. And such also is the case with Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. The main difference is, the things Joseph Smith could not have known does not fall into that category. People who say that the Book of Mormon shows us nothing to convince us of its authenticity are blind, misleading or out-in-out duplicitous—and sometimes a combination of all three.
...
Most honest people can say, well, I can’t explain it, but I don’t believe it. (Sort of like the compelling accounts of people who claim to be reincarnations of historical personalities.) But, again, the archeological evidence and consistencies of the Book of Mormon are unassailable. One may choose not to believe the Book of Mormon even in light of such consistencies, but to deny them is another matter altogether.
http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 34653&st=0
It is telling that this "cold steel" guy compares Joseph Smith with Nostradamus. Nostradamus is an obvious fraud.
when believers want to give their claims more weight, they dress these claims up in scientific terms. When believers want to belittle atheism or secular humanism, they call it a "religion". -Beastie
yesterday's Mormon doctrine is today's Mormon folklore.-Buffalo
yesterday's Mormon doctrine is today's Mormon folklore.-Buffalo
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 14216
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am
People who assert that the archeological evidence for the Book of Mormon is "unassailable" are speaking from profound ignorance.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
Penn & Teller
http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
Penn & Teller
http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4247
- Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 8:47 am
Roger Morrison wrote:Tried the link and was told "could not be had," or something like that... Roger
You have to cut-and-paste it. MADB blocks link-clicks from MDB.
It is telling that this "cold steel" guy compares Joseph Smith with Nostradamus. Nostradamus is an obvious fraud.
I think his point is that they're not the same, because there's little evidence for Nostradamus but there are tons of things Joseph could not have known that you'd have to be blind or a liar to dismiss.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1639
- Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2006 3:05 am
Re: Repent, thou blind liars!
Cold Steel continues to repeat wrong statements about the Millerites after I refuted them, so why am I not surprised.CaliforniaKid wrote:From MADB:Cold Steel wrote:Critics of Nostradamas will never see anything in the quatrains he wrote, and those who do will never understand why they won’t. And such also is the case with Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. The main difference is, the things Joseph Smith could not have known does not fall into that category. People who say that the Book of Mormon shows us nothing to convince us of its authenticity are blind, misleading or out-in-out duplicitous—and sometimes a combination of all three.
...
Most honest people can say, well, I can’t explain it, but I don’t believe it. (Sort of like the compelling accounts of people who claim to be reincarnations of historical personalities.) But, again, the archeological evidence and consistencies of the Book of Mormon are unassailable. One may choose not to believe the Book of Mormon even in light of such consistencies, but to deny them is another matter altogether.
http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 34653&st=0
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 2976
- Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:16 am